the priority areas in the bay area san francisco. requirement for the bay area, regions the bay area -- regions implementation of sustainable community strategy, legislation. that plan will be adopted likely by the mtc this july. in that process we have identified where we expect and want the growth to happen in san francisco. and the idea region wide is that we much better integrate land use and transportation planning such that we're focusing to where we have or can build transportation infrastructure. so, these are the growth areas we anticipate and this is coming from the planning department to identify these. you can see many of them are either in our existing population centers in terms of the financial district and south of market, but also the new projects that are developing in hunters point

shipyard, treasure island, park merced and mission bay. so, this is where the growth is coming in the next 20 or 30 years. we're going to have another 100,000 household, another 90,000 jobs come into the city. so, we've had a good time to look forward because as we know, we don't have the muni system and the transportation system at a level that we would like it to be to meet today's demands. and yet we have a whole lot more people and demand on the system coming to san francisco that we wanted to start the process of thinking about. so, what the emergence of these new job and population centers means is that the travel patterns of the city are going to be changing and evolving. we've always had kind of from the out skirts into the center of the financial district

travel pattern. [speaker not understood] in the morning comes out in the afternoons. everybody lived on the outer edges and everybody worked in the city center. it was kind of a simpler, kind of two dimensional arrangement, but that's changing as the city expands, particularly as the growth happens along the eastern part of the city and specifically around park merced, around 19th avenue, around treasure island and around the shipyard. so, we'll see that there's going to be other travel patterns that will be much stronger, create much more demand on the system than exist today. so, the implementation of the t.e.p., it is kind of critical and necessary first step to get -- to maximize, optimize the efficiency of the existing system with some modifications to the service brand. but largely within the existing

system. but as the growth comes to the city, as democrat ogg regardvses and menomic development folks expect, some of these issues are going to become more challenging, notwithstanding the work of the t.e.p. ~ and i think mr. solomon made some reference to this. as more cars come into the city, that's going to challenge the operation of muni, what we're already have the dubious distinction of being one of the slowest transit systems in the country. the t.e.p. is going to help that. as the growth comes, those gains will be challenged. vehicles are currently at capacity. many vehicles are during the rush hours. and as you know, we have some vulnerability in the way our system's designed and some bottlenecks and hot spots that in the long term we're going to

need to address. but the lack of resiliency of our system to address service disruptions is going to become more acute and more pressing need as the demands on the system grow. so, what we're focusing on and kind of the initial kind of thinking about the long-term strategy are the key corridors that are going to move people in the future. this is very high level and intentionally so. it's not even -- it's probably premature to call it a strategy. it's kind of initial thoughts on what a strategy might look like, focusing on the key -- on the core transit corridors. so, when you look at where we would be even after the t.e.p. and you look at some of these main corridors, you'll see that providers here have the dedicated right-of-way, bart and caltrain in particular, provide a pretty good alternative to driving right

now for people coming from the outer edges of the city, 15 or 20 minutes' travel time to get downtown when things are going well at least. if you compare that to our system even optimized, it's considerably more anywhere from 35 to 50 minutes. so, what we're looking at is as more people come to the city, if we're going to choose not just the [speaker not understood] goals you set for the next six years, we're going to need to shift the dial in order to accommodate all of that growth. we're going to need a lot more people on transit in order to do that, we're going to make transit a much more preferable alternative to an automobile. maybe more akin to the kind of travel times that are currently available on bart and caltrain.

so, we're focusing on these kind of core corridors and looking specifically at where some of the pinch points are. these are the struggles that john haley and his staff deal with every day when there is a problem at west portal, when there is a problem at church and duboce at fourth and k, it really cripples a much larger part of the system and you get all of market street into that category. and it's a very unforgiving system. so, small deficiencies can lead to significant problems. the other thing that our current system doesn't do well is connect to some of these emerging job centers. so, both addressing the speeds, addressing some of those hinge points and connecting these growth areas are some of the things that we're looking at in

this strategy. so, taking those tis things and kind of looking forward, this will go to 2030 because this presentation was initially developed for the mayor's 2030 task force, but i would say this is a much longer term vision if you think about how long it took to get the central subway from conception to com pletion. that itself was a 20-year process. what we're looking at is probably more like a 50 to 100-year view. but we started to think, and this is where i think maybe we want to come back to and get some of your feedback on on these planning principles. our kind of initial outline. quickly, first, build upon the existing network. we do have a lot of infrastructure in the ground, the travel and traffic patterns. i don't think we have the luxury of starting with a clean

slate. we want to i ammprove, service the existing customers and provide connections to the growth areas, another principle that we're trying to achieve. to get those travel times down to be somewhat comparable to what folks today have on bart anlt i a very ambitious goal. but if we're going to be competitive with cars and get more people out of their cars, i think we're going to need to do that. address some of those hinge points and bottlenecks that i referred to because we can develop the best system in the world, but if they're still going through these single-modes of failure, every time there is a disruption in service it will have that same ripple effect. trying to distinguish peak passenger loads by closing gaps in the network, making them more resilient, more of a network's network. increasing rail, although we're

not specifying wherein creased rail would go. i think rail is going to have to be part of the solution. and then, again, the network redundancy so we have more flexibility as part of what we looked at in real estate master plan, having more of our facilities be able to service more types of vehicles, a big gap right now is there is not an easy way to move trains between our two train yards. we have to come all the way through the downtown tunnel where we're running revenue service. so, those are some of the principles that we developed and would love your feedback on those. so, just quickly, kind of conceptual thinking is that to turn those core capacity corridors really into the high-speed, high-capacity lines to complement what we have

already with bart and caltrain. it's basically a third, it's 19th avenue corridor to the twin peaks tunnel. [speaker not understood], geary and extension of 3rd street light rail, both phase 2, the central subway, and then a future phase as well as the train service that goes around the ballpark and the train service that will go to the shipyard as that's developed. these are what we see as really the core of the system, would be the main arteries to get into downtown and to get people back out in the afternoon. but because, again, the patterns aren't just -- not because everybody doesn't live along those corridors and people are going to need to move to the other growth areas, kind of the next level down is really high capacity frequent service on a number of kind of

our other main key lines such as some of the existing rail lines, some of the existing high capacity bus lines. whether this would be brt or lrt, you know, it's kind of to be determined. but these are -- this is the kind of next level down the core that would interconnect folks to the high-speed network. and then, so, kind of putting that together on an existing network, the historic streetcars, the less frequent service, moving this together, the hubs that create more of a network system and remove some of the pinch points, we would be able to achieve that principle of really reducing the travel time from the outskirts of the city, but also connecting everybody in the city to these highest speed lines or to the high frequency

lines. and coordinating also with the other transit providers in the region. i made reference a few times to bart and caltrain, but to some of the other providers. so, it's more of a seamless system that enables people to move around on transit and use their automobile as a last resort, not as a first resort. so, admittedly, very, very high level, very conceptual, very lacking in detail such as what specific modes we'd be proposing, even what specific streets necessarily, costs, timelines. the idea is really just to start thinking about what we would need the transit system to look like in 50 years, in 75 years if we're going to be able to manage this and keep people moving in the city and have it happen in a way that doesn't require everybody to come with

their own car. so, there's a lot of refinement that has to happen. there is costing, and also cost benefit analysis, some of what we'd be looking in the future, you know, very expensive. so, understanding the benefits of that, we want to do a better job of articulating as we start advancing these. and what we want to do after we get some guidance and some feedback is start bringing this out to a community that -- and ultimately the outcome would inform the county wide transportation plan. the current one would probably be adopted this summer. so, this would probably inform the next one. but the planning department assumes to embark on an update of several elements of the general plan including the transportation element. and i think it would be good to start thinking, start having some of these long-term

principles in place if not actual lines on a map to inform that process, which is kind of the next kind of big milestone of transportation planning in the city. so, that's kind of it. i would love to hear your thoughts on [speaker not understood] some of the principles that were positing here and any thoughts you have about process advancing this discussion. >> thank you. any questions or comment? >> i'll start off. thank you. i think this kind of next steps planning is incredibly important for us to look at. and it's also, i find it a little bit daunting when i know that right now we have rush hour crowding and delays that are unacceptable for today's level of population and today's rider ship. so, i know that we are starting to address that. everything i'm hearing, more

reliable, maintenance issues are starting to i am preform. i think it is incredibly important we take the next steps and look at these. i'm wondering -- it sticks in my head so much to think this could be a 30-year, 40-year out plan to get to the point where you could get from ocean beach to the embarcadaro in 25 minutes. and i know that we have to start planning in order to do that and we have to start making those changes and we have to identify what those changes are going to be and that there will be support for them, not just from the public, but from our elected officials as well. and i'm wondering, do we have any process -- i know we talked awhile ago about some level of c-e-q-a reform that can help us see that our internal projects. do we feel like that's progressing to the point where it really is going to start to be a benefit? i know when we talked about this, director heinicke brought up the point if we do achieve some reform that will allow us to svemes, that it igog ake more sense

to wait until we've got that reform and then embark on those changes. can i just get a little sense from you what we're feeling on that? because when i look at some of the projects that we're working on now, i feel like this is incredibly daunting. >> yes. so, the time frame for anything we're talking about here is way out. i mean, there i would think be years of planning and community process before we get anywhere near the point of entering environmental review. so, anything that's happened that's not on the landscape now in terms of c-e-q-a reform or nepa reform is probably not even all that relevant. i mean, obviously anything would help. locally, if you've been following, there's a lot of discussion right now about some reform of how we do -- handle appeals here in san francisco.

depending on how that goes in the near term, that could have some impact on our projects. senator steinberg has introduced i think sb 791 at the state level. initially the governor said that probably wouldn't happen this year. the legislature said they think something will happen this year. depending how that turns out, that could be something that would be helpful. map 21 has some meatball streamlining for projects that are within rights-of-way. i think it leans a little more towards highway rights-of-way than transit rights-of-way, but i think that might be something we see a little bit more of in a successor bill. so, i think there is some movement at the c-e-q-a/nepa level that could help us, but again, the horizon what we're talking about are much beyond. and to the extent we're talking about very significant projects, these are things that

would warrant significant environmental review. it's really the long pole in this point would be the planning process to get to the stage of being ready to enter into environmental review. and i don't know how to shortcut that. i don't know if we should -- shortcut on those suggesting how to streamline that. or if this is something, thinking about transportation in the city for the next, say, 50 years or something that probably needs a lot of vetting and process and analysis. there's a lot of different ways to do it, what we have on the map are pretty motional. even getting to planning principles we could agree on as a city. >> this doesn't mean -- long-term transit vision doesn't mean that we stop making improvements [inaudible]. >> yeah, not at all. [inaudible].

>> okay, now we're going to stop and we're going to look at this long-term transit vision and won't do anything. we're still going to continue to improve our system. >> yeah, absolutely. you know, we have been operating that way without, you know, real long-term vision. there was the four corridors plan from the 70s or 80s precursor to the central subway. we haven't had a long-term transportation plan in the city. things still happen, improvements still get made. it will absolutely continue along that path. we're obviously pursuing -- we should have environmental clearance for van ness this summer. we're moving forward with geary after that. possible there willible others that come in ensuing years. so, this shouldn't at all be construed as something that would put a pause on everything

because, again, before any kind of document likev this like this, whether it's a strategy document, full kind of master plan would be developed could take quite a long time and we don't want to stop progress. we don't have the luxury of stopping progress in the meantime. ~ >> but this would give us a sort of lens to focus on those improvements [inaudible]. the maps that we want to eventually achieve. >> yeah, it may be that and it may be sequential. it may be something that you can kind of do in layers, but maybe this will point to where we should really focus our core service before we actually plan say the brt or some significant [speaker not understood] project. also to lay a road map for lack of a better word, for what we're thinking forward, the more we can think through and plan in the future, the easier it is to implement in the future. . i'm glad we're doing planning.

at the risk of receiving negative, i will say when i hear about a 50 or 100-year plan, that to me is closing in on meaningless, not just because 50 to 100 years i won't be here to enjoy it, but i think when you say something is going to take that long, you might as well say these are a bunch of slides we're going to debate and never really do anything meaningful about. now, i'm not accusing you of that, but i'm saying you asked for feedback, and my feedback would be we should continue to beat the drum that our current system is not meeting capacity. it isn't. for a variety of reasons i had to ride in late today. 10 o'clock, there was still heavy traffic in the subway. it took longer than it should have. it probably was quicker than driving to be frank, but it took longer than it should have. so, the current system isn't working as it should. and as we say, every time we discuss this, look at all those cranes, look at all these

people coming to the city. so, we're going to have these obstacles you describe. so, my feedback to you is let's not have a 50 to 100-year plan. let's have a one-year plan. let's have a two-year plan. let's have a three-year plan for the stuff you and mr. haley think we can do in those time frames to best improve speed and kass ka pass it. when i look at this map, ~ the problem that john faces on a daily basis becomes very obvious to me. why is bart beating us to the southeast corner of the city, you know, twice as fast, why? they have a right-of-way. their trains don't run above ground, deal with cars, deal with traffic signals. and their trains don't come together at van ness station causing traffic. they haven't figured out how to run trains better. they just have a more runable system. same thing with caltrain. it makes two stops in the city on a completely dedicated right-of-way so they're going to run faster. as far as i know, we don't have any plans to dig more tunnels after the central subway.

maybe we will, maybe we won't, but that's not in the current plan. so, to me it's all about right-of-way management. the pinch point at van ness, i mean, we've heard about it and we've heard about it. either it can be fixed or it can't. if it can't, we need to look at something else, but that needs to be fixed. market street needs to be closed to private traffic. i mean, you look at where all these maps end up, all the arrows are right there on market street. and the other right-of-way stuff we're exploring is geary and van ness and brt. and we heard today about how the t-line, and i will say since it took me an hour and 10 minutes to get from the west side of the city to our community meeting in -- on 3rd street that time, it does run slowly like mr. -- like mr. solomon from the community adso citizens advisory committee. so, to me a 50-year plan for

all this is fine, but if you want my feedback, let's not talk about 50-year plans. let's talk about how we take the existing network, your very first bullet point of your 50-year plan, and talk about how we improve the speed and the capacity there. because if i get stuck in castro street with my new friends who are so close to me that we don't really have a choice but to talk to each other and they recognize me and they say, how are you going to fix this, and i say, don't worry, reiskin has a 50 year plan, i'm not going to make it to church street. [laughter] >> so, that's what i think we've got to address. and if you want to come to this board and get our feedback, that's what i would appreciate. and as we go to our staff, while it's fun to talk about 50-year plans, i'd really love to hear what mr. haley has in mind for the pinch point at the van ness station or duboce. i'd love to hear about how signal priority for gear and i van ness works better than it does for the current t-line. i'd like to hear about plans

that say look, when there is no longer a k, t-line, members of bayview hunters point, we're going to have more trains available for you and here's how we're going to increase or improve the signal priority there. we don't have the luxury of the great right-of-ways. it's too bad, but it's the way it is. so, we've got to make our right-of-ways, although not dedicated, better. and if you ask me for the planning that i'd like, that's what i'd like to see. how are we going to that in one and two and three years to make those right-of-ways that we have work better? >> mr. reiskin, anything? [speaker not understood]? >> no, thank you, chairman. i concur with director heinicke. i think it's a great plan. i love the thought process through it. but i fear the [speaker not understood]. and seeing after a fiscal antedote, after reading the ha conversation with director haley about some thing [speaker not understood].

so, i think short term we should look at some of the issues we're facing on geary in the city that we're [speaker not understood]. and maybe 3 to 5 years. [speaker not understood]. again, i concur with director heinicke that certainly 3 to 5 years out is a much better plan to me and i'm willing to work on that. >> [speaker not understood]. >> i do like the idea of looking at, looking at a one to five-year plan to see where we are, but to also have that drive in terms of knowing that within five years this is where we need to be. and here are the problems we need to fix now. otherwise when we hit that 50 year, we're not going to be able to do it. does that make sense? >> director ramos. >> this is great. foresight with respect to how

to accommodate this pda growth everybody is talking about now, as we talk about the sustainable community strategies the mta is working on, i completely empathize with what director heinicke has articulated and my colleagues here have reiterated which is there are some issues, some things we need to address right away. it is going to be hard to talk about 20, 30, 150 years when we have these issues that we're grappling with today. i think that a lot of us would with benefit from learning a little bit more about how these projects that we really are working on today will actually impact and improve the service and the problems and the issues we're hearing about like the t-third will get better with the central subway. once the central subway is up and running, there won't be any t, k combos. it will just be for the most part from what i understand, just running north and south. and i think that that would be really, really helpful to

addressing the issue of capacity. i think as somebody brought up earlier, director heinicke talked about the idea of brt versus light rail and the t-third. you know, the issue -- and i'm excited, i'm always excited about brt, although i'm willing -- i think we should have a conversation about where it's more appropriate to have or not. i'm leaning more and more towards the idea of looking at light rail on geary as some people would suggest and propose. however, i think, though, that we should recognize that the light rail system that we have today that we're working with are very different from brt whereas if a light rail system gets stuck, the whole system shuts down. if you're on an n or you're on a t and the train is funny, it gets stuck, the whole system is stuck whereas with a brt, the buses can move around those vehicles that are disabled. so, i'm anxious and excited to have those conversations about,

you know, where it makes more sense to have these. and i know it's indicated in the process -- in the plan that we're talking about, you know, the next thing to talk about is where are we with light rail. i'm eager to have those conversations. but i also want to make sure that as we move forward, that we do have a plan that's informed with actual data that, you know, the way people move around the city -- i assume you're doing that, but i want to stress that, for example, my partner when she gets on an n, there is a certain n that comes through that we know that she knows turns into a j on an inbound. so, she catches that n at 9:46 or whatever it is, that comes from the sunset. instead of going into the subway, it turns and she has to argue with the operator every time, no, i know that this is turning into a j, don't kick me off. i'm really going that way to mission.

and it really speeds up her commute. she opts not to take bart in that instance. [speaker not understood]. that can be [speaker not understood] by her clipper card travel pattern. looking forward to this plan being informed by data. and then finally, i am excited and eager to talk about how this -- all of this vision is funded over the long term. i think that the sooner that we can have a road map towards funding this, the better off we'll all be in the long term. the sooner wee ellipsed with the case of how much this is all going to cost, the better we're going to be able to make the case to voters, to people who are neglecting to solicit taxes from development. all of these things that are on the table that really need to